On Creativity

[Guest guest]

Is it ever possible to paint a totally satisfying painting?

WHILE PAINTING, EACH MOMENT can be totally satisfying. But once the painting is

complete it can never be totally satisfying, because if it is totally satisfying

the painter will have to commit suicide. There will be no need to live any more.

 

That's why I say life is longing, pure longing -- longing to attain higher and

higher peaks, longing to go deeper and deeper into existence. But each moment

can be utterly satisfying; that difference has to be remembered. When you are

painting, each brush, each color that you throw on the canvas, each moment of

it, is totally satisfying. There is nothing more to it. You are utterly lost,

possessed, if you are a creator.

 

If you are only a technician then it is not so. The technician is not lost while

he is painting, he is separate from his painting. He is just using his

knowledge. He knows how to paint, that's all. There is nothing in his heart to

paint -- no vision, no poetry, no song. He has nothing to create, but just the

technology. He is a technician, not an artist. He can paint -- but while

painting it is not meditation for him, it is not a love affair for him. He is

doing it; he is a doer, separate. But the creator is not separate while he is

creating, he is one with it. He is utterly lost, he has forgotten himself.

 

That's why when painters are painting they forget about food, forget about

thirst, forget about sleep. They forget about the body so much that they can go

on painting for eighteen hours without feeling at all tired. Each moment is

absolutely satisfying.

 

But once the painting is complete, a great sadness descends on the real painter.

These differences have to be remembered. When the painting is complete, the

technician feels very happy: a good job done, finished. He is feeling tired; it

was a long tiring process, no contentment on the way. He was just waiting for

the result, he was result-oriented. He wanted to finish it somehow, and now it

is finished. He takes a deep sigh of relief. He is happy, not while he is

painting but only when the painting is complete.

 

Just the opposite happens to the creator. He is happy while he is painting; once

the painting is complete, a great sadness descends on him. "So it is over? That

peak, that climax, that orgasmic experience is over? That thrill, that

adventure, that going into the unknown is over?" ... just as lovers feel sad

after a deep orgasm: a subtle sadness, beautiful in itself, of tremendous value

-- far more valuable than the happiness of the technician, because out of this

sadness another painting will arise, out of this sadness another longing to soar

high, another aspiration to reach beyond, another search, another inquiry,

another pregnancy. The painter will be pregnant soon, will feel full, so full

that he will have to share it again.

 

It is said that when Gibbon, the great historian, finished his great work about

world history.... Thirty-three years it took to finish it, and he was so

tremendously happy for those thirty-three years that it is said that he didn't

age. He remained exactly the same, as if time never passed, as if time has

stopped.

 

But the day it was finished he started crying. His wife could not believe it.

She said, "You are crying? You should be happy, you should dance! The work is

complete."

 

Gibbon said, "The work is complete. Now what is left for me? My life is

complete." And within five years he aged so much, and by the seventh year he was

gone.

 

IT IS SAID that Vincent van Gogh, the great Dutch painter, committed suicide

when he felt that he had done the perfect painting. It is possible. If the

painter feels the perfect has happened, then there is no point in living. The

creator lives to create. The singer lives to sing, the dancer lives to dance,

the lover lives to love, the tree lives to bloom -- if it has bloomed and the

perfect flowers have come, then what is the point of prolonging a futile,

meaningless existence?

 

Your question is significant. You ask: "Is it possible to paint a totally

satisfying painting?"

 

Yes and no. Yes, while you are painting it will be totally satisfying. And no,

once it is over you will feel great sadness. But that sadness is also creative,

because it is only out of that sadness you will again start moving towards the

sunlit peaks.

 

And in this life nothing really is ever perfect or can ever be perfect.

 

You will be surprised that I believe in an imperfect God. You will be shocked,

because at least all the religions are agreed on one thing, that God is perfect.

I don't agree, because if God is perfect then Friedrich Nietzsche is right that

God is dead. God is perfectly imperfect -- that much I can say. Hence there is

growth, evolution; hence there is movement. It is always, always coming closer

and closer to perfection, but it is never perfect and it will never be perfect.

 

Nothing ever is perfect. In fact imperfection has a beauty of its own, because

imperfection has a life. Whenever something is perfect -- just think,

contemplate -- whenever something is really perfect, life will disappear from

it.

 

Life can exist only if something is still imperfect and has to be perfected.

Life is the effort to perfect the imperfect. Life is the ambition to make the

ugly beautiful. Something of imperfection is a must for life to exist, for life

to go on growing and flowing.

 

Nothing ever is perfect. Or if something any time happens to be perfect, in the

East we have a right vision of it. We say whenever a person becomes perfect,

that is his last life. The scriptures give different reasons for it; my reason

is totally different. I say yes, when Buddha is perfect he will not come back,

because perfection means life is no more possible. He will disappear into the

cosmos.

 

RABINDRANATH, a great Indian poet and mystic, prayed his last prayer to God:

"Send me back. Remember, I am not perfect. Send me back. Your world was too

beautiful and you gave me such a precious life. And I don't want to disappear

yet: I have yet to sing many songs, I have yet to paint many paintings, there is

yet much in my heart which needs to bloom. Send me back, I am not perfect! Send

me back."

 

That was his last prayer; he died praying this way. It is one of the most

beautiful prayers and one of the most beautiful ways to die. How can one thank

God more than this? "Your world was beautiful, I loved your world; I was not

worthy of it but you made me. I am not worthy to be sent back, but still, your

compassion is great. At least one time more, send me back."

 

LIFE KEEPS GROWING. Nothing ever is perfect -- or whenever something is perfect

it disappears, it goes into annihilation. The Buddhist word is nirvana. Nirvana

means annihilation, nirvana means cessation. Literally, nirvana means "blowing

out the candle." Just as you blow out a candle and suddenly the light is gone,

gone forever, has disappeared into nothingness -- that is nirvana. All the

buddhas say whosoever becomes perfect moves into nirvana, goes into

annihilation.

 

Don't hanker for a perfect painting, otherwise the painter will die. And you

have yet to sing many songs.

 

And the painting cannot be perfect, the song and the dance cannot be perfect,

for a few more reasons. One: when you visualize it in the deepest core of your

heart, it is a totally different thing. When you start painting it, you are

translating it from the subtle to the gross. In that very transforming, in that

very translation, much is lost.

 

Hence no painter ever feels satisfied when he finishes his painting. It is not

the same as that which he wanted to paint -- similar, but not the same. He has

some vision to compare, it has fallen very short. Hence he starts another

painting.

 

RABINDRANATH again has to be remembered. He wrote six thousand songs -- seems to

be the greatest poet the world has ever known -- and each song is a beauty. But

when he was dying he was crying, he was saying to God, "The song that I wanted

to sing, I have not sung yet."

 

An old friend was by the side of the bed, and the old friend said, "What are you

saying? Have you gone mad? You have sung six thousand songs. In Europe, Shelley

is thought to be one of the greatest poets. He has sung only two thousand songs.

You have defeated him three times. You should be happy and contented!"

 

Rabindranath opened his tear-filled eyes and he said, "I am not. Yes, six

thousand songs I have sung, but you don't know the inner story. The inner story

is, I wanted to sing only one song! But because it never was possible.... I

tried once, failed; I tried again, I failed. Six thousand times I have failed.

Those are all efforts, and I am not satisfied with any of them. That which I

wanted to sing is still unsung."

 

In fact nobody can sing it.

 

Buddha used to declare in every town, wherever he would go, "Please don't ask

these eleven questions." In those eleven questions, all important questions were

included: God, soul, death, life, truth, everything important was included. Why?

"Because," he would say, "they cannot be answered. Not that I don't know, but to

bring them to words is impossible."

 

There was an ancient mysterious wall which stood at the edge of a village and

whenever anyone climbed the wall to look onto the other side, instead of coming

back he smiled and jumped to the other side, never to return. The inhabitants of

the village became curious as to what could draw these beings to the other side

of the wall. After all, their village had all the necessities of living a

comfortable life.

 

They made an arrangement where they tied a person's feet, so when he looked over

and wished to jump, they could pull him back.

 

The next time someone tried to climb the wall to see what was on the other side,

they chained his feet so he could not go over. He looked on the other side and

was delighted at what he saw, and smiled. Those standing below grew curious to

question him and pulled him back. To their great disappointment he had lost the

power of speech.

 

THOSE WHO HAVE SEEN cannot say. That which has been seen cannot be painted,

cannot be reduced to words. But still each one has to give a try. The world goes

on becoming more and more beautiful because of these efforts. The world is

beautiful because of the six thousand songs that Rabindranath tried, although he

failed to sing the song that he wanted. Those six thousand failures have made

the world far more beautiful than it ever was. It will not be the same world

again, those six thousand songs will go on resonating.

 

So go on painting, go on creating. Yet I tell you again and again, you will

never be satisfied. I bless you that you should never be satisfied, but let each

moment of your creativity be a great contentment. But when something is

finished, move ahead. You have infinite capacities to create; you are unlimited,

you don't have any limits to your potential. You are not aware what you can do,

and you will never be aware unless you do it!

 

Hence the greatest creators are aware how poor has been their creation, because

they become aware, more and more aware, how much more is possible. The ordinary

person who has never created anything is not aware what he can do. There is no

other way to know what you can do unless you do it. And while doing it you can

see that what you wanted to do, what was very clear in your inner world, has

become very dim and ordinary when it has been brought to the outer.

 

You will try again. Each effort will become better and better and better, more

and more perfect, but never perfect.

 

Osho - The Book of Wisdom, Discourse 20

[Guest guest]

hi,

 

I appreciate the time and energy that supaath invests on the Osho

posts, they are beautiful.

But these long posts have nothing to contribute to Shakti sadhana

group and they become really annoying because of their frequency. I

am not against Osho i lived in his ashram in '79 when he was still

Bhagvan Rajneesh.There are many venues for those interested in Osho's

writings...there are websites and there are beautifully produced

books which are relatively cheap and those into him can read his

works easily....the point is, are these long posts which are just

extracts from one persons'-- easily avaiable --writings neccessary?

Most of these are selected with no logic and no relevence to the rest

of the messages posted by other members and the posts do not contain

any personal wisdom or experience of the author of the posts.

Do they belong here...wouldnt it be better and far more useful

if supraath started a Osho group?

Thanks

[Guest guest]

"Do they belong here...wouldnt it be better and far more useful

if supraath started a Osho group?"

 

Thank you Jaimaa1008 for your comments. The Moderators have this

discussion before and have agreed to only approve posts that we feel

are related or closely related to Shakti Sadhana ( this referring to

Supraath's post). I have personally rejected several other posts.

Supraath have his own osho group called osho_flowering.

Anybody interested you can check it out in Supraath's own

personal profile.

 

Now I want to throw this question back to the members of this group :

Does they belong here?

[Guest guest]

Hi Nora: I have actually struggled a bit with the Osho posts, and I

always appreciate when others post something questioning

them! Firstly, Supraath doesn't respond to anything anyone posts

in response. Also, Osho was not respectful of all people, evident

in some of these posts, to which I have responded on occasion.

A friend of mine considers Osho to have been a philosopher, not

a spiritual leader, and has said, when I have expressed my

concerns to her, that Osho was "only human." All of us are only

human, but many considered Osho a spiritual leader, and in that

role, he harmed people. As for whether his posts belong here, I

have seen you request of Supraath on the message board that

he post something of his own, and he has not done that. Maybe

his posts can be conditional on such a thing: that he take

responsibility for what he is posting, that he preface it with what

he feels is valuable about it, and that he respond to people who

reply to the Osho posts. Otherwise, I have looked at the posts,

and occasionally appreciate things Osho said, but the current

format of Supraath's modus operandi in Shakti Sadhana is

annoying.

 

, "Nora"

<ashwini_puralasamy> wrote:

> "Do they belong here...wouldnt it be better and far more useful

> if supraath started a Osho group?"

>

> Thank you Jaimaa1008 for your comments. The Moderators

have this

> discussion before and have agreed to only approve posts that

we feel

> are related or closely related to Shakti Sadhana ( this referring

to

> Supraath's post). I have personally rejected several other

posts.

> Supraath have his own osho group called osho_flowering.

> Anybody interested you can check it out in Supraath's own

> personal profile.

>

> Now I want to throw this question back to the members of this

group :

> Does they belong here?

[Guest guest]

Hello Mary Ann

 

Thank you for your feedback. To be honest I am not really sure who

Osho is: a spiritual leader or a philosopher. I read in one of the

website, an interview he gave and it goes sometime like this: One of

the journalist asked him: You hold a glass of wine in your hand while

your followers hold water in theirs, how do you reconcile this. He

replied: The followers drink their water, while I don't drink my

wine.

 

So my next thought is that, if you do not drink your wine or not

going to, why one earth do you bother to hold the glass of wine?

 

Well just like you I appreciate some of his posts too. If I disagree

with Supraath post, I say so and post my opinion and others join in.

I think since supraath is not interested in answering any of our

questions, so why bother asking him at all. Used this as a start of

conversation thread. At least the disagreement triggers me to voice

out my thoughts. Otherwise I become too silent. Don't get annoyed

or

upset not worth it. Lets look at the positive effect of it.

 

"But the current format of Supraath's modus operandi in Shakti

Sadhana is annoying"

 

It's the moderator's fault and not Supraath.

[Guest guest]

Hi Nora: Thanks for your reply. I also would ask "Why hold the

glass of wine?" and I would ask that in terms of why have the

Osho posts? You said in an earlier post that it is not possible to

just "drop" anger, and I say nor is it possible or necessary to not

become annoyed when something is annoying. Pema Chodron

says don't sit in a storm and pretend that it's just a little wind,

don't deny what is true about the experience. In truth, I have

begun to ignore the Osho posts. I usually only see them when

someone replies to one, and I check out to see if they may be

disagreeing with something in the original post, or pointing out

the annoyingness of the constant posting of Osho words with

nothing else. Recently I have recognized that others also point

out what they disagree with, and that the posts might belong

elsewhere. Why hold the glass of wine? There are other things

to do with the energy.

 

 

, "Nora"

<ashwini_puralasamy> wrote:

> Hello Mary Ann

>

> Thank you for your feedback. To be honest I am not really sure

who

> Osho is: a spiritual leader or a philosopher. I read in one of the

> website, an interview he gave and it goes sometime like this:

One of

> the journalist asked him: You hold a glass of wine in your hand

while

> your followers hold water in theirs, how do you reconcile this.

He

> replied: The followers drink their water, while I don't drink my

> wine.

>

> So my next thought is that, if you do not drink your wine or not

> going to, why one earth do you bother to hold the glass of

wine?

>

> Well just like you I appreciate some of his posts too. If I

disagree

> with Supraath post, I say so and post my opinion and others

join in.

> I think since supraath is not interested in answering any of our

> questions, so why bother asking him at all. Used this as a start

of

> conversation thread. At least the disagreement triggers me to

voice

> out my thoughts. Otherwise I become too silent. Don't get

annoyed

> or

> upset not worth it. Lets look at the positive effect of it.

>

> "But the current format of Supraath's modus operandi in Shakti

> Sadhana is annoying"

>

> It's the moderator's fault and not Supraath.

[Guest guest]

"I would ask that in terms of why have the Osho posts? You said in

an earlier post that it is not possible to just "drop" anger, and I

say nor is it possible or necessary to not become annoyed when

something is annoying."

 

I have answered this in my previous post. With regards to your

annoying, you have just answered your own question " I have

begun to ignore the Osho posts."

[Guest guest]

Insofar as Osho was a Tantricist, wine is one of the five sacraments used

in Tantra.

 

So the question that occurs to me is, why didn't Osho drink the wine?

And why weren't his followers similarly partaking of wine?

 

Bottom line, I'm not terribly interested in reading about Osho. He

doesn't seem relevant to Shakti Sadhana to me.

 

-- Len/ Kalipadma

 

 

On Fri, 18 Jul 2003 13:52:54 -0000 "Mary Ann"

<maryann writes:

> Hi Nora: Thanks for your reply. I also would ask "Why hold the

> glass of wine?" and I would ask that in terms of why have the

> Osho posts? You said in an earlier post that it is not possible to

> just "drop" anger, and I say nor is it possible or necessary to not

> become annoyed when something is annoying. Pema Chodron

> says don't sit in a storm and pretend that it's just a little wind,

> don't deny what is true about the experience. In truth, I have

> begun to ignore the Osho posts. I usually only see them when

> someone replies to one, and I check out to see if they may be

> disagreeing with something in the original post, or pointing out

> the annoyingness of the constant posting of Osho words with

> nothing else. Recently I have recognized that others also point

> out what they disagree with, and that the posts might belong

> elsewhere. Why hold the glass of wine? There are other things

> to do with the energy.

>

 

 

______________

The best thing to hit the internet in years - Juno SpeedBand!

Surf the web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER!

Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today!

[Guest guest]

Hi Nora: Well, here's a analogy for you: the body has its own

defense mechanisms. If you get a splinter of wood in your finger,

your body may have a reaction designed to get rid of the splinter,

either to surround it with an infection, or to dissolve it.

Sometimes the splinter just stays there, and may be irritating,

but no infection develops. However, if it's possible to remove the

splinter, all that energy of the body to deal with the intruder can

be better spent. My point is that ignoring something irritating is

not always the best solution.

 

, "Nora"

<ashwini_puralasamy> wrote:

> "I would ask that in terms of why have the Osho posts? You

said in

> an earlier post that it is not possible to just "drop" anger, and I

> say nor is it possible or necessary to not become annoyed

when

> something is annoying."

>

> I have answered this in my previous post. With regards to your

> annoying, you have just answered your own question " I have

> begun to ignore the Osho posts."

[Guest guest]

hi,

 

Osho who started out as Acharya Rajneesh and then he became

Bhagavan Rajneesh was a brilliant philosopher and he taught

philosophy in an Indian university.His early talks were brilliant and

were very much needed in a country where one feels smug about ones

own religious uperiority .He held a mirror to all the crap that

exists beneath the calm meditative exterior of most people. He

insisted that people find their own path instead of just imitating

some one else or parroting sombody else's word.

I can almost hear his slow hypnotic voice saying ..when I ask you

to throw away all idols i do not mean that you must place me on a

pedestal or make me an idol...

That was then..

With the growth of his organization he at first became a puppet and

then a dictator and then probably totally crazy.

Nora mentions the glass of wine...

> the journalist asked him: You hold a glass of wine in your hand

while

> your followers hold water in theirs, how do you reconcile this.

He

> replied: The followers drink their water, while I don't drink my

> wine.

 

Well. he lied: In "Bhagavan :The God that failed" written by Hugh

Milne(his long time body guard) there is enough evidence for his

drinking. there is also a photograph of Osho with a glass of wine in

one hand and a glass of champagne in the other on board a Panam

airplane.

[Guest guest]

Hello: This is interesting. Thank you for the information. It gives

some insight into the man. I guess it is the tendencies of Osho's

followers that give me pause, which is why the constant posts

with nothing added by the posters have little value for me.

Someone said to me several months ago that when power

abuse occurs, it is the responsibility of the victim more than the

abuser. I disagreed, saying that if the abuser has an

understanding of the power dynamic that elevates his or her

position, s/he must learn to behave responsibly so as not to

victimize. Your story about Osho is touching because if he had

such an understanding at any point, he somehow lost it, and

was not able to behave responsibly, not to those who revered

him, and not to himself, ultimately. I guess alcohol played a part

in that. Now I understand why my friend would say "He was only

human."

 

, "jaimaa1008"

<jaimaa1008> wrote:

> hi,

>

> Osho who started out as Acharya Rajneesh and then he

became

> Bhagavan Rajneesh was a brilliant philosopher and he taught

> philosophy in an Indian university.His early talks were brilliant

and

> were very much needed in a country where one feels smug

about ones

> own religious uperiority .He held a mirror to all the crap that

> exists beneath the calm meditative exterior of most people. He

> insisted that people find their own path instead of just imitating

> some one else or parroting sombody else's word.

> I can almost hear his slow hypnotic voice saying ..when I ask

you

> to throw away all idols i do not mean that you must place me

on a

> pedestal or make me an idol...

> That was then..

> With the growth of his organization he at first became a puppet

and

> then a dictator and then probably totally crazy.

> Nora mentions the glass of wine...

> > the journalist asked him: You hold a glass of wine in your

hand

> while

> > your followers hold water in theirs, how do you reconcile this.

> He

> > replied: The followers drink their water, while I don't drink my

> > wine.

>

> Well. he lied: In "Bhagavan :The God that failed" written by

Hugh

> Milne(his long time body guard) there is enough evidence for

his

> drinking. there is also a photograph of Osho with a glass of

wine in

> one hand and a glass of champagne in the other on board a

Panam

> airplane.

[Guest guest]

Maryann and others -- Thank you for your comments. I agree that

Supraath's posts can seem irrelevant, and that he should make some

effort to edit them or explain their relevance to the group. But we

are all different, and we all have our passions and beliefs. As long

as he does no harm, let him post. Those who value his effort may

enjoy; those who do not may ignore.

[Guest guest]

Hi All -

 

The piece was a bit off topic and long but it was very useful for me

to read as an artist to have some sense of what Rajneesh was about.

There was a lot about him that I didn't understand. Of course

Omprems' reply was helpful for me to see that at leasts someone other

than myself were aware of his excesses.

 

Osho or Rajneesh understood what it means to be an artist better than

perhaps he understood being a guru. I wonder if he showed his "gold"

a bit too early before he could handle it in the same way that Andy

Warhol or a Micheal Jackson did. There is a reason why we have

elders or why need to mature into the "job" we do.

 

For me it was a good read. Perhaps he could post them as a file.

Freedom is a good thing and control is a good thing. Sometime we a

little stretch is a good thing.

 

Anyway, those are my thoughts.

 

Thank you.

 

Eric

 

 

 

 

, "Nora"

<ashwini_puralasamy> wrote:

> Maryann and others -- Thank you for your comments. I agree that

> Supraath's posts can seem irrelevant, and that he should make some

> effort to edit them or explain their relevance to the group. But we

> are all different, and we all have our passions and beliefs. As long

> as he does no harm, let him post. Those who value his effort may

> enjoy; those who do not may ignore.

[Guest guest]

Namaste, everyone

 

I just joined this group after receiving an invitation. So, pardon my jumping

in as I don't know yet what the accepted practice here is for new members.

 

This thread "On Creativity" immediately caught my attention since I am an

artist. I was very inspired by the post.

 

However inspirational these posts may be, I have to agree that without discourse

and a chance to interact with the person who posted the message, we are left

hanging in the wind. This doesn't help us in creating community. We have no

chance for dialogue nor any opportunity to learn from each other. And that,

IMHO, is one of the major purposes and goals of having an online group such as

this.

 

Otherwise, a group just becomes a series of serial postings. This does not

develop any group cohesion. And I have seen other Internet groups wither and

die when postings simply become a series of individual postings with no

commentary or discussion.

 

Having said this, I would love to see this discussion "On Creativity" now

include thoughts on our beloved Saraswati, and how she moves, inspires, guides,

teachers, *many more words than possible*, us in our own personal creativity. I

remember one woman, a singer, at an annual camp I go to in Vermont each summer,

who had a small pendant of Saraswati on a necklace. She wanted Saraswati to

inspire and flow through her singing and playing (guitar).

 

Namaste

 

Melissa (mmmoongoddess)

 

, "Mary Ann" <maryann@m...> wrote:

> Hello: This is interesting. Thank you for the information. It gives

> some insight into the man. I guess it is the tendencies of Osho's

> followers that give me pause, which is why the constant posts

> with nothing added by the posters have little value for me.